People v. Lyles
Docket No. 153185
Trial Lawyer’s Takeaway: On harmless-error review, appellants must show that they likely would have prevailed.
Lyles was convicted of murder, but appealed the trial court’s denial of his request for an instruction informing the jury that his evidence of good character could create a reasonable doubt of his guilt. The issue in this appeal, however, is whether that error harmless. In an opinion authored by Justice Larsen, the Court concluded that Lyles had failed to show that it was more likely than not that the outcome would have been different if the trial court had given the requested instruction.
The Court started its analysis by noting that preserved, non-constitutional errors are subject to harmless-error review under MCL 769.26. The Court of Appeals erred, according to the opinion, by “focusing on the importance of the good-character instruction to defendant’s defense strategy instead of evaluating the likelihood of defendant’s prevailing on that strategy.” The Court stressed that the question on harmless-error review is “whether the instruction would have made a difference in the outcome.” Lyles’s character evidence, the Court said, “was extremely weak.” And the Court walked through the facts on each side.
Justice McCormack authored a dissent, which was joined by Justices Viviano and Bernstein. McCormack marched through the evidence, much like the majority, but reached a different conclusion.
Full opinion here.